Content
86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tight, well-structured adversarial-review skill that is token-efficient and clearly sequenced. The only meaningful gap is the absence of a worked finding example, which keeps actionability and workflow_clarity just below the top anchor.
Suggestions
Add one short worked finding (title, file:line, failing scenario, impact, fix direction) to model the exact output format and lift actionability to the top anchor.
Include an explicit feedback loop in the Hunt section (e.g., 'reproduce -> confirm -> re-check related paths') to strengthen workflow_clarity for ambiguous cases.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (~50 lines), assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; every section delivers actionable directives with no padding, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance via a findings standard (five required elements), a four-level severity rubric, and specific check categories, but lacks a worked example of an actual finding — a minor gap keeping it below the fully-copy-paste-ready anchor at 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (establish boundary, hunt for failures, findings standard, report) with numbered steps and a checklist-like findings standard; the read-only nature means no destructive validation cap applies, but there is no explicit feedback loop, so it sits at 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single under-50-line file with no need for external references and well-organized section headers; per the simple-skills note this qualifies for the top anchor on structure alone. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |